Hollywood Babble On & On #712: Downside/Upside

The ABC network has cancelled venerable soap operas All My Children and One Life To Live, to replace them with cheaper talk/lifestyle shows. If you don't know your TV/pop culture history, soap operas go back to the days of radio, and they were essentially daily melodramas created for the express purpose of entertaining housewives while they did their cooking and cleaning. They got their name because of their overwrought, melodramatic, even operatic, story-lines, and almost all of the original soap operas were either sponsored or produced directly by rival soap companies.

The soap opera's been having a bit of a rough time lately, network's see them as overly expensive because of their large casts and crews, and audiences just aren't as eager or able to indulge in this guilty pleasure as much as they used to. So one by one, or in this case, two at a time, they are being cast into the dustbin of television history.

So let's look at the downside of this decision, and then try to end on an optimistic note by trying to think up an upside.

DOWNSIDE:

1. A lot of people are out of work. Soap operas have large casts, large crews, and provide a lot of employment. All of the on-camera jobs, and the majority of the behind the camera jobs will not be picked up by the new "lifestyle" shows because they use much smaller crews, way fewer writers, and almost no actors.

2. Soaps are the gateway gig for a lot of young actors. Look at a lot of people in movies and TV, and quite a few of them got their first jobs doing small parts on soap operas. Some spent time as soap regulars, and it taught them how to work hard and to be prepared, lessons a few members of the so-called "A-List" could use.

3. I'll be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the shows replacing the soaps will make their soapiest silliest story-lines look like an episode of Firing Line, featuring John Maynard Keynes debating economic price systems with F.A. Hayek.

UPSIDE:

1. It's an upside for filmmakers because people with lots of soap experience can be worked like rented mules, and think it's a vacation. Soap schedules are brutal, and they instill a pretty solid work ethic in actors, writers, and crew. Many who move to working in movies or prime-time television usually find that work a hell of a lot easier. So if you're a producer looking for reasonably priced actors and crews willing and able to work fast, you're in luck, some will soon be available.

As you can see the downsides badly outnumber the upsides. Personally, I wish the casts and crews of the two cancelled shows good luck finding new work. They're going to need it in today's entertainment market.

Hollywood Babble On & On #711: Open Road Gets The Ball Rolling

Open Road, the distributor started by theater chains AMC & Regal, is now filling their executive suites in preparation for their grand opening.

I wish them luck, they're going to need it. Film distribution is a tough business, and the studios and their conglomerated parents aren't going to be lending any helping hands. In fact, they will probably do whatever they can to hinder this project, because they don't take well to any competition.

Now I've offered advice to independent film companies, and potential distributors before. (Feel free to search through the archives for them.) But if there's one thing I love, it's flogging a dead horse, so here's some more advice.

1. READ THE SCRIPTS. I honestly didn't think this would be necessary, but apparently, a lot of people just don't read the damn scripts anymore. Now I know a lot of deals would be with people with films already in the can, but it's inevitable that you will eventually get involved in films before they're made, it's the nature of the beast. Please read what you're getting into before you jump in head first.

2. THE K.I.S.S. PRINCIPLE. That means that you must KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID! The fashionable strategy when setting up a film company is to make things as complicated and convoluted as possible. That might be fine and dandy like sour candy when you're already a massive multimedia, multi-variant, multifarious, mega-conglomerate with more divisions than Zhukov, but when you're an independent distributor, it's more harm than good.

Remember the troubles of David Bergstein and his ThinkFilm debacle. The last thing you want are news media reports like this one about courts having business documents unsealed, then resealed, sparking all sorts of unpleasant talk that can only serve to make you look bad, whether you deserve it or not.

Such things always spring from unnecessary business complications whether you are actually guilty of doing anything wrong or not. If things are kept simple, then there are fewer things to screw everything up, and a lot fewer things you can get blamed for.

3. MAKE FRIENDS. I know I say this all the time, but bear with me. Theatrical releases are all well and good, but there are other markets. Chief among them are the forms of home video and television that have the same need for better product, in both quantity and quality, as the theater chains that are forced to become distributors. To crack that market you need friends. I'm talking NetFlix and independent cable channels and local broadcast stations. They're getting jerked around by the big studios too, both in terms of money, product, and these silly games with release windows. Develop partnerships, based on mutual enrichment over one-sided exploitation. Then you can create a new business model that can outperform the clanking wasteful, behemoth otherwise known as the major studios.

I hope someone finds this helpful.

Hollywood Babble On & On #710: Is It Worth It?

There's a hell of a lot of chatter about the "Premium Video On Demand Service" being set up by a coven of four studios (20th Century Fox, Sony, Universal & Warner Bros.) that will allow people to stream movies at home, via DirecTV, just 60 days after their theatrical opening for just $30 a movie. Google's think-bots seem to think that it's viable, but are unsure about the price, meanwhile the theaters, pissed over losing their precious release window are hatching all kinds of retaliation plans, from boycotting movies released under this plan, to reducing the number of trailers they show, to putting flaming bags of dog poop on the front steps of Studio CEOs all over Beverly Hills.

The question I have to ask is: Is it worth it?

Now that question has two meanings. One meaning is for the consumer, and the other meaning is for the companies behind this plan.

FOR THE CONSUMER

Okay, let's play a little thought experiment and imagine that the service is up and running, and the telemarketer has just interrupted your dinner to tell you that it's available in your area.

Do you really think it's worthy to pay $30 to see a movie 60 days after its theatrical opening, when, if you waited a few more weeks, you could see it, and literally dozens more, via Netflix screening for $7.99 a month?

Or barring that, buying it on DVD, usually for less than $20, and have the extra features that film buffs enjoy.

The coven's main selling point for this VOD plan is the simple fact that going to see a movie in a theater is a pain in the butt. You have to get there, burning precious gasoline, or paying for public transit. If you drove, you have to get parking. Then there's your ticket, snacks, and after the show is over, there are the various and sundry expenses to get your butt home. If you have kids, then it's a whole other nightmare, because society seems to frown on just locking them in a cupboard until you get home.

But in the theater, you have it on a big screen. One that fills your vision from one edge to the other. You also miss the social aspect of being with a crowd of people, the extra electricity of an opening night, and the subtle pleasure of just getting the hell out of the house and interacting with other human beings once in a while.

Sure, you could invite people to come join you when you drop the $30, but the decision to stream a VOD movie is usually a spur of the moment thing, brought on by overwhelming ennui over the vast wasteland of television. If you're going to hold a "Watch A Movie At My House" party you have to take into account the need for a really bitching home theater system, plus food, beverages, etc..., to make it worth the while of your friends and family to attend over just streaming it at their own home.

Now you must ask yourself, is all that really worth it?

Now onto...

THE COMPANIES

The guys who thought up this plan are probably thinking they are really clever fellows. Setting up the service won't cost all that much, and they don't have to share the revenue with pesky theaters, only DirecTV.

But the costs of setting up the service is just a short term, tangible, there are other, more intangible costs out there that could be a lot pricier.

I'm talking about making enemies.

As I mentioned earlier the owners of the big theater chains are plotting their vengeance. I wrote a while back that AMC and Regal are even opening up their own movie distributor, called Open Road, and NetFlix is starting to produce original content to compete with the studios that aren't putting out enough product to make up for the duds. The coven's DirecTV plan could put a turbo-charger on those plans, and if they succeed, they could seriously damage the major studios.

Remember, the studios suffer from a fundamentally dysfunctional business plan, that causes feature film production/distribution/marketing costs to rise, profit margins to shrink, and quality to suffer. If these new rivals break free from that dysfunctional tradition, and make movies that are reasonably priced with wide audience appeal, then the studios will have to deal with a dwindling market share as well.

So now they have to ask themselves: Is this plan really worth it?

Hollywood Babble On & On #709: How To Succeed In The Media Without Actually Succeeding

Katie Couric is getting ready to leave her job as the anchor for the CBS Evening News, ending a run marked by viewership numbers going down, and the few remaining viewers being old enough to remember "Taftonomics," while they wonder why Walter Cronkite is looking so dag-gum effeminate lately.

You're probably thinking that her career prospects are pretty dim right now because of that failure.

Well, no.

Currently reports and rumors say that she's fielding offers to work on 60 Minutes with CBS, NBC, ABC, and even a daily talk show with former Today Show co-host Matt Lauer, masterminded by former NBC-Universal CEO Jeff "Screw It Up Royally" Zucker.

So why are the major networks running to hire someone who had done so poorly?

Well, it's not because to succeed in major network media, you don't really need to be successful, you just have to be important in the world that the TV network decision-makers dwell. The folks who do the hiring and firing at the big networks and media companies live in a world that is smaller and more insular than even Hollywood. They literally only know each other, and if you are important in their social circle, then they assume that you must be important to the rest of the planet.

Sure you might have a reputation of being hard to work with, you might be really expensive to employ, and you might not be able to attract the ratings making the hassle and expense worthwhile, but that doesn't matter. If you're one of the chosen few belonging to the right boards, committees, and clubs, you're in and only the most extreme, disastrous, putrescent failure is going to get you out.

Even More Studio Notes For Literary Classics

In what's becoming a semi-regular feature, I've concocted some more drippings from my brain pan in the form of the sort of notes that major studios or networks would give to literary classics. Enjoy.

To. CS Lewis. Re. Narnia books. Does Aslan have to be a lion? Penguins are cheaper & make cuter toys.

To. V. Woolf. Re. Orlando. Continuity error: You forgot your lead's a man in the middle of the book. Glad I caught it.

To. ER Burroughs. Re. Mars book. Got a great idea for a title: The Face On The Barsoom Floor. Great, isn't it?

To. J. Verne Re. Submarine book. Needs a new ending, how about they land in Miami?

To. D. Defoe. Re. Robinson Crusoe. Does Friday have to be a dude. There's a lot more story possibilities with a hot chick.

To. B. Pasternak. Re. Dr. Zhivago. Setting it in Russia puts a crimp on any sexy beach scenes. Reset it in California.

To. WP Blatty. Re. The Exorcist. Do they have to be priests? Personal trainers look better on the cover.

To. S. Jackson. Re. The Lottery. I don't see them selling many lottery tickets with such a lousy prize.

To. R. Matheson. Re. I Am Legend. The vampires don't sparkle. Real vampires sparkle.

To. HP Lovecraft. Re. New stuff. When you pitched doing a "dream cycle" I thought it was going to be about choppers.

To. J. Thompson. Re. The Killer Inside Me. If there was a dancer inside him, the story would be more uplifting.

To. J. Wambaugh. Re. The Choirboys. I'm confused, there's no singing in the entire book.

To. C. Woolrich. Re. The Bride Wore Black. Not to be a nit picker, but brides traditionally wear white.

To. J. Thompson. Re. The Grifters. Do they have to be con-artists? Would sell better if they were a teen boy band.

To. J. Heller. Re. Catch 22. I think we need to start this franchise at Catch 1 before jumping ahead to #22.

To. R. Condon. Re. Manchurian Candidate. Is Manchuria like Oz or Wonderland? Try someplace more realistic, like Malibu.

To. M. Puzo. Re. The Godfather. The whole book's a tad grim & violent. Think making it more like the "Fockers" movies.

To. P. Straub. Re. Ghost Story. We think the title is a little too "on the nose" so to speak.

To. EL Doctorow. Re. New novel. Ragtime music isn't exactly hip these days. Think retitling book "Emo."

To. FS Fitzgerald. Re. Flappers & Philosophers. Needs more flappers, fewer philosophers. Nobody likes philosophers.

To. B. Orczy. Re. Scarlet Pimpernel. First Wally Scott & now you! There are no damn pimps in this damn book!

To. Sir W. Scott. Re. Ivanhoe. The title's about a Russian pimp, but the book's about knights & stuff. Confusing.

To. A. Dumas Sr. Re. Three Musketeers. This book really needs a big ass airship chase.

To. R. Connell. Re. The Most Dangerous Game. I don't get the title, I didn't see any games, just a lotta hunting.

To. J. Steinbeck. Re. Grapes of Wrath. The Depression/Dust Bowl stuff is, well, depressing. Needs a funny talking dog.

To. H. Walpole. Re. Castle of Otranto. Italian castles are out this year. Think Malibu beach house.

To. B. Tarkington. Re. New novel. The Ambersons could be really "magnificent" if they were a family of acrobats.

To. D. Hammett. Re. New character. Is a "continental op" some sort of European gender reassignment surgery?

To. M. Cervantes. Re. Don Quixote. Continuity error: your lead is called "Don" when his name's Alonso & not Donald.

To. GG Marquez. Re. Love in the Time of Cholera. Cholera isn't exactly sexy, nymphomania sells better.

To. WS Maugham. Re. Of Human Bondage. There's no S&M in the book, we could be accused of false advertising.

To. A. Haley. Re. Autobiography of Malcolm X. We think the book will sell better with a hot blonde chick in the lead.

To. J. Joyce. Re. New novel. I think it would sell better with the title: "Portrait of a Sex Machine."

To. L. Wallace. Re. Ben-Hur. Love the story, but it's got a bit of a preachy streak. Needs a comical sidekick.

To. U. Sinclair. Re. The Jungle. The tone of the book is endangering our cross promo deal with Hormel. Lighten it up.

To. T. Wilder. Re. Our Town. This play would be sexier if your town was set in my 90210 zip code. Think about it.

To. PS Buck. Re. The Good Earth. Are you married to the idea of setting it in China? The Jersey shore is hot this year.

Hollywood Babble On & On #708: Please Elect Me Supreme Ruler

Okay people I think it's time for a change.

I think it's time for you to elect me the Supreme Ruler of the Planet. See, I already have my appropriately regal outfit picked out.

Because it's as your Supreme Ruler I will be a brutal but completely unfair tyrant who will finally bring a little common sense to the planet through savage oppression and creatively bat-shit punishments.

I will hereby ban and render punishable by catapult:

1. Any more movies about action bad-asses going to war against their own evil CIA masters for some inanely contrived reasons. It may have been clever at some point, but for the love of Cthulu, look at this ever growing list:

Hanna
Salt
The A-Team
Green Zone
The Losers
The Bourne Identity
The Bourne Supremacy
The Bourne Ultimatum
Shooter
Mission: Impossible 1
The Long Kiss Goodnight
and many many more....

And that's not even a complete list. Face it, when it comes to spy movies, it looks like the Bond franchise is the only one allowed to use villains who don't work for the CIA. Get another goddamn plot, find another goddamn villain, or I'll catapult you into the Hollywood sign.

2. Stupid studio notes. The history of Hollywood is riddled with inane "notes" those inane neurological farts executives like to toss at projects claiming to improve them, but really only to justify their own existence. Under my tyranny, if you're an executive and your note doesn't include anything constructive, or helpful, it's onto the catapult, and straight into the LaBrea tar pits.

3. Bad remakes. I'm talking about the sort of logic that makes Universal drop $150+ million on redoing Land of the Lost, simply because it was an old piece of shit with a familiar name. Now if someone has a very specific vision that could breath new life to an old story, then consider it. But if it's all about name recognition and digital effects, it's a one way trip on the catapult into the empty shell of a closed Blockbuster outlet.

4. Celebrities being made into cartoon characters. Sorry Stan Lee and Arnold Schwarzenegger, your grand plan to have Arnold as The Governator wearing Booster Gold's second hand cast-offs fighting second hand Go-Bots to save the environment from somebody... or something... either way, it's straight to the catapult with you for a one way trip into that billboard in Hollywood advertising that wannabe actress who looks like an octogenarian drag queen pretending to be a half-melted Barbie doll.

5. Shitty reality shows. If all you have for a concept is putting a bunch of raging narcissistic assholes together to act like a bunch of raging narcissistic assholes, then get on the catapult and prepare to be launched off the Jersey Shore and straight into the Atlantic.

6. Shady studio accounting. From now on bills will be paid, in full, and on time. Contracts will be simplified, as well as any and all other obnoxious and destructive business practices. Anyone violating this edict will be immediately catapulted off the highest point in Beverly Hills, and into Rodeo Drive.

If you have any other suggestions for my coming tyrannical rule of the planet, feel free to leave them in the comments.

Hollywood Babble On & On #707: Things I Shouldn't Have To Explain!

You know, the world is full of things, events, happenstances, if you will, that have roots that should be pretty damn obvious to all and sundry involved. Yet here I am compelled, nay, forced, to explain those roots because some folks just don't get it.

DOWN DOWN ALL THE WAY DOWN WITH HELL-HOUNDS ON YOUR TRAIL

Total box office revenues are down 20.3 % from last year, and overall movie attendance is down 21.5%. Even big family films, usually guaranteed money machines aren't raking in what comparable films did in times past.

Now right this minute studio executives are sitting in their offices scratching the heads and furrowing their brows in a feeble attempt to understand why this is happening. They gave the audience lots of remakes, lots of 3D movies, and lots of overwrought, overpriced, over the top extravaganzas, so why aren't people going to movies?*

None of them seem to realize a very simple truth.

Too many of their movies suck.

The major studios are paying too much attention and money on superficial nonsense and forgetting why people go to the movies in the first place.

They don't go to see product placements.

They don't go to see special effects.

They don't go to wear bacteria addled 3D glass that give them a headache.

They don't even go to see stars anymore.

What audiences want are stories. Fun stories, scary stories, silly stories, sad stories, happy stories, and exciting stories.

This is exactly what happened to the major studios in the 1960s. With the coming of television the studios went into a long period of decline desperately hoping to find a magic bullet in technicolor, widescreen, overwrought epics, and the exploitation of fads long after they were done and dusted. It wasn't until the baby-boom generation of the 1970s that stories people wanted to see came back to the forefront. This sparked a second golden age of cinema, both critically and commercially that well into the time when those baby boomer filmmakers started repeating the mistakes of their elders that eventually led us to the period, and trouble that we're in now.

I really shouldn't have to explain this.

*I'd add that they'd be worried about their jobs, but in this age of the platinum handshake that's really not much of a worry for them.

30 ROCK BOTTOM?

Tina Fey made an interesting comment where she blamed the consistently dismal ratings of her NBC sitcom 30 Rock on the polarizing effect of her impersonation of former Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin. You see, despite the critical praise, the awards, and honors, the show's highest ranking in the ratings was #69 (Season 3), with a second highest ranking #86 (Season 4) and an all time low of #102 (Season 1).

While I'm sure that a small group of people may have tuned out because Fey's Palin impression, it's not the real reason why the show has struggled to connect with the audience. Come on Ed Asner is politically nuttier than a squirrel turd, but that didn't keep people from paying money to hear him grumble in Disney/Pixar's Up.

The real reason why 30 Rock has failed to connect with the audience is that 30 Rock wasn't made for the audience.

30 Rock is made by Hollywood, for Hollywood.

I know the show is set and filmed in New York, but I'm referring to Hollywood more as an entertainment based community rather than a single location.

Now that we got that piddly nit-picking out of the way I can finish explaining.

30 Rock is all one big in-joke for the in-crowd, and those who want to be among the in-crowd. I tried to watch it when it first came on, but found it kind of smug in a "look at me and how clever I am" kind of way. And I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of other people who don't watch the show, and apparently they are legion, thought too.

Need proof? Look at its lists of guest stars. Hardly an episode goes by, at least since Season 4, without some cameo or guest spot by a movie star or celebrity eager to prove their wit and ability to "laugh at themselves" in a peer approved venue where there's no risk of them looking bad. I mean when I heard that Tom Hanks was going to appear in the upcoming Season 6, my first thought was: "You mean he hasn't done it already."

This insider nature is one of the key reasons the show has stayed on the air despite its poor ratings. It's a great entree into the Hollywood smart set to be the guy who green-lit another season of the show, and allows its fans to sit around and tut-tut about how simple minded the great unwashed masses are for not worshiping the show in the way they do.

It's really not that hard to figure out.

Hollywood Babble On & On #706: Closing The Window?

If there's one thing the brain-trust that runs Hollywood is good at, it's diplomacy.

No wait, April Fools is over, sorry about that, in fact, they are really, really lousy at diplomacy.

Recently a coven of studios announced a deal with DirecTV that creates a new premium Video On Demand window. For $30 DirecTV customers get a 48 hour viewing window to watch movies just 60 days after their initial release in theaters. Naturally the theater chains are having a royal shit fit over this deal threatening to boycott any and all films released on this plan, and former Fox honcho Bill Mechanic dropped in his 2¢ in a video interview for Bloomberg.

Mechanic thinks this deal is beyond fixing, his main points revolve around the fact that the movies need theaters, because they are the opening salvo in what is actually a long and multi-stage campaign. The biggest single source of revenue comes from ticket sales in theaters. If the film doesn't make a profit right away in theaters, they then have such things as video on demand, DVD sales/rentals, and television replay rights to help bring in money over the long run that might lead to eventual profitability.

Whittle down the theatrical release window down to next to nothing hurts the other revenue windows, because you run the risk of losing the vital word of mouth that movies need to be considered worthy of rental, purchase, or viewing on some commercial TV outlet. Then there are the smaller films, the ones that are not mega-budget tent-pole movies who show surprising legs in theaters thanks to good, yet modest audience response. The audiences who might pay to see them in the theater, might skip that entirely and wait the 60 days for this new VOD window.

I also see something else, an expression of extreme arrogance. Theater chains AMC/Regal are opening their own distributor and Netflix is going into making their own content, because, as I've written before, the studios are not doing their job producing the quantity and especially the quality of product they used to.

This after the studios pushed theater owners to spend billions on more screens, digital projection, 3D technology, and upgraded picture/sound systems.

Then they go ahead and pull this whole premium VOD stunt, and effectively threaten to pull the last rug out from under the theater owners, without a scintilla of consultation.

The theater owners are naturally pissed, and all the studios are saying is that they have to do this because of the skyrocketing costs of making and marketing movies.

Yet, as Mechanic says in the interview, and I've said since I've started this blog, those are Hollywood's very own self-inflicted injuries. They own the major networks that carry the advertising, and charge ever increasing amounts, for ever decreasing returns. They spend too much to make too little on sub-standard stories, and remakes in the vain hope that this time it will work for some reason, and then they go ahead and enrage their only real ally in this racket, the theater owners.

Arrogance and stupidity are a bad mix, and I don't see this possibly ending well for anyone.

Hollywood Babble On & On #705: Fine Art, Film, & Fiefdoms

There's a lot of talk going around about government financing and the arts. Cutbacks to film and arts subsidies in England have spawned protests, there's work afoot in the US congress for the federal government to stop funding the CPB/PBS/NPR system, and folks are complaining about that too.

Which brings me to today's topic, well, actually more of a question: What role should the government play in the funding of the arts?

The days of deep pocketed taxpayers are over, governments worldwide are looking to tighten their belts, and arts funding is usually the first thing tossed over the side. Is it really the end of civilization as we know it as some are saying, or can it be a good thing once all is said and done.

So let's step back from the often emotionally tinged arguments, and look at the pros and cons of government funding for the arts, specifically film, which is my forte because I've actually had a little experience in the heavily government funded Canadian film system:

PROS:

1. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES FINANCE PROJECTS THE COMMERCIAL FINANCIERS WON'T TOUCH.

We all love the idea of people producing art for art's sake, which is something you're really not going to get at a major studio. Studios are looking for a return on their investment, and they are not going to get that for your short film about Freudian angst and bodily functions. Nor will they fund your 8.5 hour film which consists of a single shot of a garden gnome in the rain.

But government agencies will, if you show that your project has the right artistic merit.

2. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES WILL GIVE NEW TALENT A CHANCE WITHOUT A COMMERCIAL TRACK RECORD.

Because movies especially are so expensive to make commercial film financiers want to have some sort of insurance for their investment in the form of filmmakers with a track record. The better your track record, commercially, the more likely you are to get a precious green light. But if you don't have a track record, you are shit out of luck. Government agencies can actively seek out that new talent, and bring them out of the shadows and into the public eye.

3. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES ARE BASTIONS OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM.

The idea is that without the pressure put on commercial investors to both dip to the lowest common denominator while being the least objectionable artistic freedom is dependent on taxpayer dollars.

CONS:

1. COMMERCIAL FINANCIERS WON'T TOUCH MANY OF THOSE PROJECTS FOR A PRETTY GOOD REASON.

While I'm no fan of the tastes of studio and network executives when it comes to the sort of projects that get government funding there is usually a good reason why no commercial investor would touch it.

Artistic merit has very little to do with whether or not a project gets government funding, what gets a project funding can be found in reasons #2 and #3.

2. TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES HAVE MORE TO DO WITH FIEFDOMS THAN FINE ARTS.

Government bureaucracies, even arts based bureaucracies are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats, by definition, care about one thing, preserving and propagating their own power. They do this by creating little fiefdoms within their agencies, and fostering relationships with people that can help them maintain and expand those fiefdoms.

So they tend to keep the projects they back within the very narrow confines of the politically and socially connected people that they need in their quest for advancement.

These bureaucrats can only lose their jobs if these politically and socially connected people grow displeased with them and the subsidies that they can bring to their social lives. So arts and film agencies will deliberately finance projects that will either bore or repel the general audience, but get them pats on the back for "courage" at the various festivals and exhibitions they spent other people's money on.

3. THE IDEA THAT TAXPAYER FUNDED ART AGENCIES GIVE NEW TALENT A CHANCE IS LARGELY A MYTH.

Where commercial studios look for a track record, arts agencies look for connections. If you want in on the government money, you must be personally invited in by someone who already has a seat on the trough and has room for one more, because, like the bureaucrats, they too are looking to create their own government funded fiefdoms.

4. TAXPAYER FUNDED ARTS AGENCIES ARE NOT BASTIONS OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM.

This can be boiled down to a simple, yet effective cliche: Who pays the piper calls the tune. There are two different sets of people calling the tune when it comes to government funded arts. First are the bureaucrats, and as I stated earlier, they are only interested in fostering the goodwill of the political and social elite who can keep them funded. The second are the politicians, but they don't call the tune all the time, preferring to usually play the sleeping giant.

You see there is a line that exists in the world of arts funding, the "I don't want to pay for this shit" line, and the bureaucrats have to carefully skirt that line without crossing it. They need to skirt the line to keep the bigwigs thinking they are brave, in service to art over mammon, and that the people who pat him on the back are better than the great unwashed. However, when they miscalculate and cross the line, they awaken the sleeping giant.

When the taxpayers start complaining about arts funding going to crucifixes in urine, or Christian religious icons covered in feces, the last thing the politicians want to be is on the side of the urine and feces. So they suddenly become interested in taxpayer funded arts funding, and think it's something they can do without it, because the only people benefiting from it, are not going to vote for them anyway.

So in conclusion, I guess you can say that, in my experience, government funding for the arts is usually way better in theory than in practice.

More Studio Notes For Classic Literature

Last week I used a slow news day to justify posting some of my Twitter silliness where I made up some "Studio Notes" for literary classics.

Well, I have some more, so enjoy.

To. J. Kerouac. Re. Dharma Bums. Folks find the word "Bums" offensive, change to "Dharma Homeless Males."

To. F. Kafka. Re. Prison colony story. Needs a new title because folks might misunderstand meaning of the word "penal."

To. O. Wilde. Re. New play. Not to nitpick, but salami is not spelled "Salome" & why was she named after lunch meat?

To. M. De Sade. Re. New novel. Putting "120 Days" in the title makes the book sound like a long pain in ass.

To. W. Shakespeare. Re. Merchant Of Venice. The Shylock character comes across as too "ethnic." Try renaming him Steve.

To. E. Hemingway. Re. Movable Feast. I don't get the title, there isn't a single food truck in the entire book.

To. R. Dahl. Re. New book. Does the fantastic Mr. Fox have to a fox? Ocelots are very in this season.

To. J. Steinbeck. Re. Of Mice & Men. Mice give me the willies. Try "Puppies." Also, ditch Lenny, he sounds kinda dim.

To. AC Clarke. Re. 2001 project. Book's a bit of a sausage fest. Instead of space can they "odyssey" to Miami Beach?

To. E. Hemingway. Re. Fishing novel. Does your protagonist have to be an "Old Man?" Think Jennifer Garner.

To. S. Crane. Re. Red Badge of Courage. War stories are passé. Think Adam Sandler/Kevin James buddy comedy vehicle.

To. AC Clarke. Re. Space Odyssey. 2001 is an awfully long way away, change it to 1983.

To. V. Woolf. Re. New novel. When the family goes to the titular lighthouse can they find smugglers? Think Hardy Boys.

To. E. Waugh. Re. Brideshead Revisited. Ditch religious/philosophical stuff & think wacky romantic misunderstandings.

To. A. Christie. Re. New character. Can you make Miss Marple young & hot? Oh wait, we're doing it!

To. G. Flaubert. Re. Madame Bovary. The ending's a bit of a downer. I think it needs a heist for an exciting finale!